Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report
This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.
Project Number: 49454-001 March 2020
Papua New Guinea: Support for Water and Sanitation Sector Management (Financed by the Technical Assistance Special Fund, Multi-Donor
Trust Fund and Sanitation Financing Partnership Trust Fund under
Water Financing Partnership Facility, and the Government of
Australia)
TA-9298 PNG: Peri-Urban Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Advisor
Final Report
Assessment of Barriers and Enablers and options for delivery of improved WASH in Settlements in Papua New Guinea
February 2020
Submitted by Ken Marshall
Email – [email protected]
i
Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Context ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2.1 Settlements and Urban Villages .............................................................................................. 1
2.2 WASH Sector Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................ 3
2.3 WASH Planning, Policy and Legislation ................................................................................... 4
2.4 Financial and Economic Considerations.................................................................................. 8
3 Barriers to Improving Access to WASH Services ........................................................................... 10
3.1 Leadership ............................................................................................................................. 11
3.1.1 Policy/Planning .............................................................................................................. 11
3.1.2 Sector Capacity / Workforce Development .................................................................. 12
3.1.3 Leadership and Woman ................................................................................................ 12
3.2 Community ............................................................................................................................ 12
3.2.1 Culture and Political Economy ...................................................................................... 12
3.2.3 Governance ................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Technology ............................................................................................................................ 14
3.3.1 Water supply ................................................................................................................. 14
3.3.2 Sanitation ...................................................................................................................... 15
3.4 Land – Impact of Insecure Tenure ........................................................................................ 17
4 Enablers for Improving Access to WASH Services ........................................................................ 20
4.1 Leadership ............................................................................................................................. 21
4.1.1 Coordination Arrangements ......................................................................................... 21
4.1.2 Policy Framework .......................................................................................................... 21
4.1.3 Pro-Poor Approach........................................................................................................ 22
4.1.4 Gender .......................................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Community ............................................................................................................................ 23
4.2.1 Participation and Role ................................................................................................... 23
4.2.2 Evidence and Data......................................................................................................... 24
4.2.3 Service level Choices ..................................................................................................... 24
4.2.4 Health and Hygiene ....................................................................................................... 25
4.3 Technology ............................................................................................................................ 25
4.3.1 Water ............................................................................................................................ 25
4.3.2 Sanitation ...................................................................................................................... 26
4.4 Land Tenure .......................................................................................................................... 27
ii
4.5 Sector Capacity ..................................................................................................................... 27
4.5.1 Capacity Assessment ..................................................................................................... 27
4.5.2 Technical Assistance ..................................................................................................... 28
4.5.3 Eda Ranu Planning / WaterPNG .................................................................................... 28
5. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 29
5.1 Reviewing and Reducing Targets .......................................................................................... 29
5.2 National Commitment and Coordination ............................................................................. 30
5.3 Sustainability and Eda Ranu .................................................................................................. 30
5.4 Community Involvement ...................................................................................................... 31
5.5 Options assessment for Increasing WASH in Settlements .................................................... 32
Acronyms
ADB Asian Development Bank
CEPA Conservation and Environmental Protection Authority
CSO Civil Society Organisation
CSO Community Service Obligation
DNPM Department of National Planning and Monitoring
DoE Department of Education
DoH Department of Health
NCDC National Capital District Commission
MKA Motu Koitabu Association
SOE State Owned Enterprise
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WASH PMU WASH Project Management Unit
1
1 Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to describe the peri-urban WASH sector in Papua New
Guinea and to discuss the barriers to increasing access to effective water and
sanitation services, and the potential enablers that can support the achievement of
ambitious WASH targets. The paper also includes an options assessment for
increasing access to water supply and sanitation services in settlements.
This results from ongoing work in peri-urban WASH in Papua New Guinea that
began in April 2017, and included the placement of a WASH Specialist to work with
the WASH Program Management Unit in the Department of National Planning and
Monitoring (DNPM) and also provide support to other key sector agencies including
Water PNG (the utility providing services to urban centres outside of Port Moresby)
and Eda Ranu (which provides services in Port Moresby).
Findings presented are based on extensive consultations with key stakeholders in
Papua New Guinea since 2017, and three WASH Household Surveys (Tete,
Vanimo, and Kerema). Household surveys have included interviews with a total of
424 women and 454 men
as well as a range of both
structured and
unstructured observations
of sanitation facilities and
hygiene behaviour.
2 Context
2.1 Settlements and Urban Villages
There are four broad challenges to be addressed in the WASH sector in PNG if the
ambitious national targets are to be achieved, these are how to implement effective
WASH programs in urban, rural, informal settlement and urban traditional village
locations. Whilst there are similarities between the four, there are critical differences
that need to be considered when developing workable, scalable, and adaptable
models.
This report will focus on WASH in informal settlements (settlements) and urban
traditional villages (urban villages) and will identify key barriers to, and enablers for
the development of sustainable WASH improvements.
For the purposes of this report the word “settlement” will refer to populated areas that
are within or close to the gazetted urban area of the National Capital District (NCD -
Port Moresby), but are not a formal part of the city, meaning they are informal or
unplanned residential areas that have developed outside of the formal urban
planning rules of the city.
Settlements in PNG generally have the following common characteristics:
Location Female Male Total
Tete (POM) 68 83 151
Vanimo (West Sepik) 182 162 344
Kerema (Gulf) 174 209 383
Total 424 454 878
2
• Unplanned / no formal planning / no legal household section/allotment
numbers
• Residents have no recognised legal land tenure
• Very poor or non-existent services – water, sewerage, electricity, health,
education, solid waste
• Informal employment common
• Economically and financial dependant on the urban area
Whilst accurate data is difficult to obtain, it is apparent that there are many people
living in settlements around and within the Port Moresby boundary. Data obtained
from Eda Ranu (Port Moresby Water Utility) accounting system in 2017, and from
consultations with the National Capital District Commission (NCDC) suggests that
there are 114 settlements in and around Port Moresby.
By using census data and applying best estimates of population growth, it is
estimated that the current Port Moresby population is approximately 860,000 people,
and half of these live in settlements and urban traditional villages. The number of
people living in settlements nationally could be as high as 1 million people.
Within Port Moresby there are a number of urban villages occupied by the original
inhabitants of the land on which the city stands. The customary landowners of Port
Moresby are the Motu Koitabu people and there are eight main villages within the
city boundary, these include Hanuabada, Tatana, Baruni, Korobosea, Mahuru, Kira
Kira, Vabukori, and Pari, as well as Poreabada on the outskirts of the city.
The Motu Koitabu Assembly (MKA) is a special authority that exists in the NCD to
represent the interests of urban village residents. MKA councillors are responsible
for promoting development within urban villages.
Recent estimates of the population of Motu Koitabu people in Port Moresby range
between 40,000 to 50,000 with around 20,000 to 30,000 people living in the ‘Big Village’ of Hanuabada.
3
2.2 WASH Sector Roles and Responsibilities
Figure 1 below outlines the WASH related responsibilities of key PNG organisations.
The urban water sector is clearly the responsibility of both Eda Ranu (Port Moresby)
and Water PNG (urban towns not including POM). These responsibilities have been
established by law under the NCD Water and Sewerage Act 1996 and National
Water Supply and Sewerage Act of 1986.
Whilst there have been recent moves to merge the two organisations, this seems to
have stalled and Eda Ranu remain responsible for Port Moresby and Water PNG for
all other towns in the country.
Both Eda Ranu and Water PNG, as State Owned Enterprises (SOE), except that
they have an obligation to provide water for poor communities, this is often referred
to as the “Community Service Obligation (CSO)” but neither see this as a mandate to pro-actively plan to improve conditions in settlements or urban villages. In addition,
whilst the CSO includes a mechanism for both Eda Ranu and Water PNG to be
reimbursed for fulfilling these obligations, this mechanism has so far not operated
effectively, and funds spent have not been recovered from government.
Both Eda Ranu and Water PNG have a responsibility to provide sewerage services
within town boundaries, although given current capacity this is seen as a lower
Figure 1 - Key WASH Coordinating Agencies
4
priority both in formal areas of the city and informal settlements where the focus is
still on water.
The NCDC with input and support from the MKA are responsible for planning the
development of Port Moresby, this includes plans to develop new suburbs and to
identify new land for formal settlement. NCDC also have capacity for health and
hygiene promotion and are working in many locations throughout the city.
The Department of Health have the role of supporting organisations and
communities by promoting improved hygiene behaviour and the use of low
technology toilet facilities through the promotion of the “healthy islands” approach. At
present, they are inactive in PNG settlements, and are stretched in delivering basic
health services to rural areas throughout the country.
The Office of Urbanisation are theoretically responsible for coordinating all urban
development planning, although they do not appear to be fulfilling that role at the
present time. They are currently waiting for their Act to be passed which will give
them greater power in terms of the coordinating role they should play.
The only cross agency coordination in the current environment is the WASH
Taskforce chaired by the Secretary at the of the Department of National Planning
and Monitoring (DNPM). This taskforce was put together whilst the WASH policy
was being prepared and includes the following stakeholders; the Asian Development
Bank (ADB), Conservation, Environment, and Protection Authority (CEPA),
Childfund, Consultative Implementation, and Monitoring Council (CIMC), Department
of Implementation and Rural Development (DIRD), Department of National Planning
and Monitoring (DNPM), Department of Education (DoE), Department of Health
(DoH), Department of Treasury (DoT), Department of Works (DoW), Department of
Provincial and Local Level Government Affairs (DPLGA), Eda Ranu, the European
Union (EU), National Authorising Officer Support Unit (NAOSU), UNICEF, Water Aid,
WaterPNG, World Vision (WV), World Bank (WB), and Colgate Palmolive.
Under the Bill for the establishment of the NWSHA the Taskforce is now changed to
WaSH Consultative Forum.
This group has supported the development of the WASH Policy and have been
focussed on rural WASH. The WASH Taskforce has only recently established a sub-
committee that focuses on Peri-Urban WASH, which has been in-part supported and
driven by ADB’s support to peri-urban WASH.
2.3 WASH Planning, Policy and Legislation
At the highest-level national planning documents are supportive of the WASH sector.
Of most relevance to the sector are:
• the PNG Vision 2050
• the Development Strategic Plan 2010 – 2030
5
• the National WASH Policy
• the Port Moresby Urban Development Plan - Port Moresby Towards 2030
• the NCD Water and Sewerage Act 1996
• the Community Services Obligation
The PNG Vision 2050 at the “What will make it work” level has eight key enablers, these are:
1. Effective leadership and good governance
2. Healthy educated and skilled communities
3. Enabling legislation and policies
4. Enabling basic infrastructure
5. Financial capacity
6. Effective service delivery
7. Enabling citizen values and participation
8. Performance and accountability
All of the above are clearly key components of future successful WASH interventions
in settlements.
The Development Strategic Plan (DSP) 2010 to 2030 recognises the challenge of
the growing settlement population and has identified “available” land as a key constraint, claiming that it needs to double by 2030. When the DSP was written, it
estimated that 28% of the urban population were living in settlements.
The DSP aims to reduce the percentage living in settlements to less than 15%. Most
estimates currently put that figure at close to 50% of the approximately 860,000
people. So, if there are currently 430,000 people living in settlements, then
approximately 365,500 people need to transition from living in settlements to not
living in settlements. This can be done in one of three ways. People could move
back to their original home, they could move to formal land and properties in Port
Moresby, or the land where they are currently living could be formalised. Given the
current scale of this challenge, innovative approaches will be needed to both open
up new land, but also to formalise existing settlement areas.
The key document for the WASH sector is the PNG WASH Policy 2015 to 2030.
The policy includes seven strategies:
• Improved sector coordination and leadership
• Increased WASH sector funding
• Effective management information system
• Improved approaches to WASH service delivery
• Appropriate technology promotion
• Enhanced private sector participation, and
6
• Sector capacity building and training.
It sets ambitious targets for increasing access that include 70% coverage for water
and sanitation for rural areas, 95% coverage for water for urban areas, and 85%
coverage of access to sanitation for urban areas.
According to the Policy peri-urban areas (settlements) are included as part of the
urban targets (95% access to water and 85% access to sanitation). If targets are to
be reached, then models that provide effective WASH services for settlements are
essential.
The National Capital District Commission (NCDC) are the central planning body
for all development in Port Moresby. They have recently released the Port Moresby
Urban Development Plan - Port Moresby Towards 2030.
This plan identifies both settlements and urban villages as a focus for improving the
liveability of Port Moresby, these are included as Initiatives 1 and 2 in the plan and
are shown in figure 2 below.
7
Figure 2 - Key Initiatives of the POM Urban Development Plan
In response to the serious nature of the challenge, the NCD Governor is providing
leadership with a new initiative, the Settlements to Suburbs program. The program
aims to convert all settlements to formal suburbs and is based on the One City
concept of an “inclusive city for all its citizens”. The key components of the initiative
are to provide security of tenure with subdivision and land titles, and basic services.
The initiative is currently being implemented with pilot projects in each of the three
electorates of NCD; Moresby North-East, Moresby North-West and Moresby South.
The nine settlements included in the pilot initiative are, Moresby North-East: Eight-
Mile, Nine-Mile, and ATS, Moresby North-West: Burns Peak, Nautana, and Morata
and Moresby South: Kipo, Ragamuga and Kaugere as shown in Map 1 below.
Map 1 - Settlements Planned for Development into Suburbs
Whilst this is progressive and potentially exciting for settlement residents, it will not
help to improve WASH services in the near to mid future for most settlements and
should not encourage people to think that an approach to WASH in settlements is
not needed.
8
The NCD Water and Sewerage Act 1996 is the Act that gives Eda Ranu the
responsibility for providing water to all Port Moresby formal residents. The Act makes
no explicit mention of settlements, communities, or any pro-poor water provision.
The Community Service Obligation (CSO) is discussed in some detail throughout
this report.
2.4 Financial and Economic Considerations
Potential WASH projects cover a large range and scale of activities, including
hygiene awareness and behaviour, land ownership reform/formalisation, construction
of water/wastewater networks, water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants,
public and private toilet facilities, and service level and metering considerations.
Whilst no financial or economic analysis is possible without specific proposals for
WASH projects, there are a range of economic and social benefits which are likely to
include:
• less community disease, decreasing health treatment costs and increasing
productivity;
• less time and effort spent on water collection, allowing labour (particularly for
women) to be allocated to other activities;
• environmental benefits associated with less pollution, including improving
performance of sectors that rely on water as a resource (e.g. fishing,
agriculture, tourism).
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) concludes
that the benefits from provision of basic water supply and sanitation typically far
exceed costs, with a benefit to cost ratio of 7 to 1. The OECD further observes that
benefits are likely systematically understated because of the difficulty of calculating
the economic value of important social benefits. For example, in addition to health
and productivity benefits, a well-functioning toilet provides benefits of dignity and
convenience, social status, safety at night, the ability to care for older relatives, and
reduced fear and anxiety.1
The community service obligation (CSO) policy framework (discussed further in
section 3.3.1 Policy and Planning) could allow WASH projects to be undertaken in
even the poorest communities without negatively impacting the financial
performance of Eda Ranu or WaterPNG. The CSO policy framework is intended as
an enabler for WASH projects, however an associated barrier may be the limited
understanding of the framework by Eda Ranu and WaterPNG staff and an
associated lack of willingness to exercise it due to either the low likelihood of
receiving funds or the lack of appropriate administration procedures.
Tariffs can be barriers or enablers for WASH projects, depending on the structure
and level of tariffs.
1 Benefits of Investing in Water and Sanitation: An OECD Perspective, OECD, 2011
9
Water and wastewater systems typically have high fixed costs, with relatively low
variable costs associated with electricity for pumping and chemicals for water
treatment. This leads to regulators and economists to recommend “two-part” pricing structures with significant fixed charges ($ per day for connection to the system) and
volume charges ($/kL for metered water consumption and, sometimes, modelled
wastewater flows). The variable rate is set to reflect the marginal cost of water or
wastewater delivery.
However, in the poorest communities tariffs must be set at equal or less than current
payment for water (from less formalized services), to encourage uptake of services.
Higher tariffs result in uneconomic non-uptake or theft / illegal connection. Given the
benefit to cost ratios for typical basic WASH projects discussed above, it is likely that
the economic benefits of take up of basic WASH projects outweigh the costs of non-
cost-reflective pricing. That is, very low fixed charges and low variable charges
(lower than the cost of supply) are likely more desirable than providing an overpriced
service. However, if the supplier of water is a private or state-owned enterprise, then
financial feasibility and performance may make this difficult.2
As development occurs and as the benefits of a well-maintained legal
water/wastewater connection are experienced by users, tariffs can be gradually
increased.
Consistent with this approach, in its 2015 price review, the ICCC abolished
fixed/minimum monthly charges for residential customers and set a low variable
charge for initial “lifeline” water consumption for both Water PNG and Eda Ranu. To the extent that the poorest communities can afford even this regulated “lifeline” tariff, the current tariff structure is an enabler of increased uptake of services.
The tariff discussion above reflects the “normal” situation of water and sanitation supplied directly to each dwelling. However, basic WASH projects that implement
PNG WASH policy service levels, would likely include provision of communal
facilities, such as standpipes, water storages and in very specific circumstances
public toilets.
It is difficult to design a mechanism to recover the costs of these facilities from the
community. For example, it is difficult to exclude non-paying community members
from using the facility and, if someone can use the facility without paying, there is low
incentive for anyone to pay.
Solutions to this problem are limited. In some circumstances, it may be possible to
grant a local concession or otherwise provide staff to supervise the facility and take
payment for use. More often, the most basic level of service (standpipes, public
2 A tariff lower than the direct cost of supply can be efficient where there are positive externalities. For
instance, the economic benefits to society (e.g. lower healthcare costs) can be priced into the service. So the
efficient tariff for a service can reflect the economic cost of supply, taking into account benefits that are not
captured by the customer.
10
toilets) is provided free to the community. Over time, customers can be directly
connected and begin paying for the improved service.
In summary, the communal nature of basic WASH projects provides challenges for
cost recovery. Difficulties associated with commercial arrangements for communal
services could be considered a barrier to basic WASH projects.
3 Barriers to Improving Access to WASH Services
The WASH Policy talks about developing sustainable approaches to WASH
improvements, particularly in rural and urban settings.
Figure 3 below identifies some of the key barriers that must be overcome if
settlement and urban village WASH conditions are to improve in line with the
ambitious national targets. Whilst there are many challenges, it is the interrelated
nature of these critical challenges that is holding the sector back.
Figure 3 - Challenges for Improving WASH in Settlements and Urban Villages
11
3.1 Leadership
3.1.1 Policy/Planning
The policy and legislative framework for working in settlements in and around Port
Moresby is fragmented and unclear. Whilst there are a range of organisations that
have some involvement, and have some plans, there is a lack of coordination and
poor communication. In addition, it is difficult to find consistent data regarding
settlements, and certainly it is not all kept in one place.
Whilst specific reference to the Community Service Obligation (CSO) is not made in
the NCD WSS Act, Eda Ranu clearly accept that they have a responsibility to abide
by the intention of it. The CSO came into force in November 2012 and outlines what
is expected of both Eda Ranu and WaterPNG and of the Government. It outlines a
process for entities to apply for government funding to fulfil any community service
obligation. There is a detailed description of the process and timing for applications
and a commitment to value for money that allows Government to seek tenders from
private organisations. The CSO Guidelines allow Eda Ranu to cost in normal profit
margins and to detail how they will reduce the cost to Government over time.
However, it may be that current interpretations and practice regarding the CSO are
not in line with the intent of the Guidelines. There is a general feeling that as a SOE
Eda Ranu should provide at least a minimum service to all those in need. Given that
this normally involves providing a very low level of service it is not surprising that
users often do not pay.
From discussions with Eda Ranu it is apparent that whilst they have provided water
to many of the 114 settlements around Port Moresby, under their own interpretation
of the CSO, they have not received funds from Government for doing this. It also
appears that they have never submitted a proposal to Government for funding their
CSO activities.
This situation causes several issues. The practice of Eda Ranu providing water to
settlements has encouraged a feeling that water is free, certainly at the basic service
level. The fact that Eda Ranu have never proposed these activities to Government,
and have never received funding from Government, makes it difficult for Eda Ranu to
be commercially successful, or for them to provide anything other than a basic
service to settlements. The lack of engagement with Government around the CSO
Guidelines has allowed the deepening of the feeling that water is a free good and
has resulted in settlements having a very low-level service that is not valued or paid
for.
12
3.1.2 Sector Capacity / Workforce Development
Whilst there has been a lot of work done on the development of the WASH Policy
and ambitious targets set, there has been inadequate analysis of local capacity to
respond to these targets.
Whilst it is possible that some communities may develop their own water supply
system, this is unlikely in most cases, given the land ownership challenge and the
lack of capacity to design/develop and manage water systems. For the “settlements” sector the main provider of water in Port Moresby will continue to be Eda Ranu.
For WASH improvements to be most effective they should be implemented in an
integrated way, one that addresses water, sanitation, and health and hygiene
simultaneously. Local capacity to implement effective sanitation and health and
hygiene programs is limited and mostly exists within the Department of Health
(Health Promotion), the NCDC, and the NGO/FBO sector.
UNICEF are currently in the process of conducting a capacity assessment of rural
WASH actors and agencies. Whilst this will be helpful for the rural WASH sector and
may have some benefit for the urban sector, it is unlikely to help understand local
capacity for working in the peri-urban sector.
3.1.3 Leadership and Woman
Recent elections in PNG have seen the reduction in the number of women members.
This reflects a society where women struggle to achieve any form of equitable
representation.
This is relevant to the WASH sector where the benefits of WASH improvements can
have a big impact on the quality of life of women. Given that women and girls are the
key users of water in the home, and the key carers of family members when they are
sick, water and sanitation improvements can make a real difference. This is
particularly relevant in relation to the management of infant faeces and menstrual
hygiene management.
Given the huge impact on the quality of life for all settlement residents that WASH
improvements can bring it is clear that a much larger representation of women would
benefit the sector.
Local leadership within settlements broadly reflects leadership across the country.
There are few women leaders in settlements, and a low number of representatives in
settlement committees, outside of the “women’s” representative role or the treasurer.
3.2 Community
3.2.1 Culture and Political Economy
Many people who now reside in settlements around Papua New Guinea still
remember a time when water was free. In most villages water was collected from
local sources owned by the community, with little or no infrastructure to transport
water.
13
To a large extent this attitude towards water being a free good still exists, the
challenge is helping people to understand that as soon as water is transported,
through pipelines, tanks etc, then there is a real cost involved.
Whilst settlement residents generally do not have a strong or unified voice, they do
have a vote. The Electoral Commission compile and maintain a list of residents for
each settlement and whilst this is not a comprehensive list it does represent a large
number of voters.
The relationship between settlement residents and their political representatives is a
complex one and reflects cultural attitudes towards representation and accountability
the country over. The “wantok” system that governs these relationships creates a
dualism in behaviour that encourages political figures to act in certain ways, as
expected of them. This often manifests in public acts of support and generosity, for
instance paying a settlement community’s outstanding water bill, however that act also creates a reciprocal act of support by residents.
This relationship may be counterproductive in terms of residents being able to
express their needs and priorities in a forceful manner and expect action on their
behalf.
Whilst residents are living in very basic conditions, they can be considered a
captured source of political support. They know that if they do not support their
representative, then that representative will not support them.
How this influences decisions around prioritising development activities and
investments is still unclear, but some evidence would suggest that this situation is to
the benefit of the representative and the detriment of settlement residents.
Many settlements have had a limited water supply installed as a result of political
support from their member. This is generally done as a CSO commitment and
usually includes a pipeline from an existing service point, and one or two water
points in a community. Residents consider that such a service has been “provided” by government. In addition, this has seldom included sufficient work on organising
the community to manage and pay for the water provided, especially in settlements
where people come from many different places and do not necessarily trust those
from other provinces.
This situation has normally resulted in a limited supply that is not paid for by users.
Given the poor service level of many of these systems, it is not surprising that
residents seldom pay for it. Unpaid “community” water bills mount up to a point where Eda Ranu have no choice but to disconnect the service. Many times, when
this happens the account is paid up to date by the Member or a prominent person.
This situation has contributed to settlement resident’s attitudes towards paying for water. The water is installed for free with little consultation, the service is often so
bad that no one pays for it, when the service is disconnected then it is paid by a
politician.
14
3.2.3 Governance
Governance in settlements is varied and diverse. Given that all settlements are
slightly different, and have developed informally, there are no guidelines or
structures to be used or followed.
Most are comprised of people from a number of different provinces. Whilst there are
people who would be considered leaders to others from their own province, they
would not be considered leaders by people from other provinces.
Most settlement communities who have received some form of water supply, have
established a Water Committee. Given the size of many settlements, members of the
community may or may not be familiar with the members of the Committee.
Committees usually are made up of prominent people in the settlement, those that
have some form of relationship or something in common with the representative
member.
Currently there are approximately 112 settlements around Port Moresby that have a
“community” account with Eda Ranu. Very few of these accounts are paid and many
have never been paid from the day of installation.
Governance in urban villages is stronger than in settlements. Leaders are
recognised and do have some authority when dealing with the management and
payment for services. Community managed schemes with shared standpipes are
more likely to be successful in an urban village with recognised leaders and a sense
of shared responsibility.
3.3 Technology
3.3.1 Water supply
Residents in settlements in Port Moresby use a variety of different water sources.
Most use water provided by Eda Ranu, but seldom pay Eda Ranu for it, instead often
collecting it from markets and water vendors. In addition to mains water they use
rainwater, spring water, water from hand-dug wells, and water from surface water
sources, there is very little use of handpumps or boreholes for domestic water
supplies in settlements.
When they are using water provided by Eda Ranu and collecting it within the
settlement, it is normally collected from a standpipe. Standpipes are generally in
poor condition meaning that the tap is often broken, and that the facility is poorly
designed or constructed.
Most settlements have no water storage and so only get access to water when there
is sufficient pressure. Given that the flow is often dictated by prevailing pressure in
the system or by Eda Ranu regulating the pressure to reduce losses, residents do
not know when water will flow, or when it will stop. This means that residents have to
form a queue in order to wait for the water to flow. This often causes conflict when
15
people leave their containers in the queue but may not be there when the water
starts to flow.
Settlement residents collect water in a variety of different sized containers, the
biggest being approximately 20 litres. Since most people do not live close to the
Standpipe they have to walk and carry heavy loads, restricting the amount that can
be transported (and used), and often causing physical stress and injury. Many
people store water in or close to their house, often uncovered. There is little
discipline or knowledge regarding the effective use of dippers to use water and
minimise contamination and it is likely that water will become contaminated between
being collected and being used.
Many of the community water systems that provide water to settlements are
constructed as a response to a community service obligation and at the request of a
politician. This often means that they are constructed with inadequate funds and
subsequently provide low service levels and are constructed with low cost materials.
Many systems consist of a HDPE or PVC pipe that connects an existing main to a
settlement. Such pipes are poorly buried and often dug up by residents in order to
install an illegal connection.
3.3.2 Sanitation
Sanitation in Port Moresby and more broadly in Papua New Guinea is a real
challenge. It is difficult to get accurate figures concerning the different sanitation
methods that are being used in Port Moresby, but it is apparent that only a small
percentage of fecal sludge is being safely managed. The draft Sanitation Cityscape
diagram below illustrates the size of the challenge. Some of the figures are
estimates, that are on the conservative side.
Figure 4 - Sanitation Cityscape Port Moresby (Marshall 2018)
Total Faeces Production of Port Moresby
OD 20%Septic 25%Sewers 14%
Treatment
Plant
80%
Discharged
to Sea
20%
Discharged
to TP 50%Other 50%
11.2% 2.8% 12.5% 12.5% 20%
73m3 18m3 81m3 81m3 129m3
Draft Sanitation Cityscape of Port Moresby
Latrines 41%
Effective 16% Ineffective 25%
16% 25%
103m3 161m3
Green = 257m3
Yellow = 18m3
Red = 371m3
TOTAL NOT SAFE= 389m3 per day
Population 860,000
Average FS per person 0.75 litres
Total FS = 645m3
16
The current estimated population of Port Moresby, including settlements, is 860,000
people. It is difficult to estimate exactly how much fecal sludge is produced by one
person in one day given the range of influencing factors (diet, climate, health etc)
and the varying levels of excreta to urine. However, if each person produces 0.75
litres of fecal sludge each day, then a total of 645m3 are produced each day.
Currently Eda Ranu has 15,762 sewerage accounts. If we assume that each one
services 8 people, this means that 121,367 people are using sewerage. As shown in
the diagram above, this equates to 14% of the total population of POM. There are
two sewerage systems in POM, one serving coastal houses, the other an inland
system. Of all sewerage 20% is part of the coastal system and discharges directly to
the sea through a series of sea outfalls, and 80% is part of the inland system and is
directed to the treatment plant. So, a total of 91m3 of sludge is being managed
through the sewage system.
The figure above assumes that 25% of the population use septic tanks, half of which
are emptied and discharged at the treatment plant, and the other half dumped at
locations around town including at the local waste facility and in drains and small
rivers. This means that 12.5% of waste is considered “safe” equating to 81m3, and
the other 81m3 is considered “unsafe”.
Assuming that 41% of people are using some form of pit latrine, 16% of which are
effective and 25% are ineffective. This means that 103m3 are considered safe, and
161m3 unsafe.
The remaining 20% of waste is people defecating in the open, or 129m3.
So as shown in Figure 4 there is a total of 645m3 of fecal sludge being produced
each day with 257m3 of this being treated. There are 18m3 being discharged
through sea outfalls with no treatment, and 371m3 that are not being treated but
remain in POM.
Sewerage is extremely expensive and coverage in Port Moresby is not likely to be
significantly improved over the next fifteen years, although the recent Port Moresby
Sewerage System Upgrading Project (POMSSUP) has improved some existing
systems and increased connections. Therefore, sanitation solutions need to be found
that are inexpensive, appropriate, available, and acceptable. Currently there are few
options available to people living in settlements. They have limited space, limited
money, and insecure land tenure. This means that people do not want to invest in
sanitation technology or to improve their own sanitation situation without
considerable encouragement, support, and assistance from others. It has been
observed in many situations around the world that when people get more secure
tenure over the land where they live, they start to improve their house and their
general living conditions, including toilets.
Most people living in settlements use a pit toilet. These are normally unimproved
meaning they have a wood or mud and wood slab. They have no design features to
17
discourage the movement of flies, are often full, and are constructed close to the
house. Whilst some people have obviously spent money on these toilets, they are
still poorly constructed, and whilst they may have concrete floors or risers, they still
do not operate as an effective barrier to the transmission of disease.
3.4 Land – Impact of Insecure Tenure
Whilst there are many different classifications of land type, they broadly fall into one
of three categories. These are customary land, State owned land, and privately-
owned land. By far the most common in PNG is customary land with approximately
97% of all land being held in this way.
Customary land is land that is owned and controlled by the customary owners, the
people who have lived on that land for generations. Whilst it can be transferred, the
process is lengthy and complex. Sometimes when customary land is transferred,
“new” customary owners appear and claim that the land was not the property of the sellers, and so it cannot be legally transferred. This results in lengthy and expensive
land disputes that can last for many years and can lead to conflict.
Approximately 2% of land in PNG is government or State-owned land, land that
has been “alienated” from its customary owners, and legally registered as
government land. This is true of parts of Port Moresby, with the land often being left
abandoned and an obvious target for settlement. Just less than half of the
settlements in Port Moresby are on state-owned land with half on customary land.
Currently in Port Moresby there are several settlements that are on privately owned
land, land that has been granted to a private developer for the purposes of
development. When such land has existing settlers on it, the NCDC have told the
developer that it is their responsibility to accommodate or relocate the settlers. This
is difficult for the developer who has little chance of success, this can easily become
a volatile political situation. At this point in time there are a number of developers
who have purchased land from the government but cannot find a way to successfully
develop it.
The issue of land ownership and the right to use land is a critical factor in developing
services for settlements in and around Port Moresby. Land ownership and secure
tenure could be considered one of the most critical elements of sustainable WASH
improvements in settlements around POM.
A study conducted in 2006 of informal settlements in Honiara and Port Moresby
(Chand and Yala 2008) concluded that insecure land tenure often causes:
• Poor access to basic services. Settlers often share toilets and water sources
and lack facilities for disposing of waste.
• Large family groups to settle close to each other to provide security for people
and property. But having large households involves sharing income, an
arrangement that taxes the most productive member.
18
• Opaque ownership rights to land has exposed settlers to multiple and
sometimes cascading taxation by their patrons and, in some cases, by a
multitude of landowner groups.
• Incidences of regularising tenure have nearly always been followed by rapid
improvements in housing quality.
The study also concluded that many respondents said that whilst they lived on State
land, they were vulnerable to eviction at any time, and that their tenure rested on
maintaining strong political relationships with their Member. However, for the
Member there was a risk that their support base could be eroded when constituents
become more land secure.
In the same study, settlers often felt more secure on customary land than on State
land. The reasons they gave for this included that they had greater trust in traditional
agreements and that landowners were less able than the State to forcibly evict them.
As Port Moresby has grown, NCDC have, in the past, identified State land for
development, this has led to the eviction of residents of some settlements, causing
them to settle new areas, or to make existing settlements larger with additional
cultural and ethnic conflict more likely. More recently NCDC have concluded that
moving residents of settlements is no longer viable, they have nowhere else to go,
and are starting to plan ways of formalising settlements where residents are already
in place.
Land tenure is particularly relevant in terms of providing services to settlements
given that the Port Moresby water utility Eda Ranu is not mandated to deal with any
properties that are not legally registered, meaning that if they are not considered a
“rateable” area, then Eda Ranu should not provide services.
Whilst this is a clear legal statement, Eda Ranu as a State-Owned Enterprise also
has a “Community Services Obligation” (CSO) to serve all residents of Port Moresby,
including the very poor and those living in settlements.
The lack of formal land tenure and location documentation also makes it difficult for
Eda Ranu to bill for services at the household level, and to establish formal
easements where they can place their pipes, and pipe trenching and location has
caused problems in the past, with conflict always close to the surface.
Throughout the Pacific these forms of insecure land tenure are often closely aligned
with poverty. Although in more recent times some relatively wealthy residents have
moved into settlements, as rents have risen in town, poverty is still a major
characteristic of settlements in PNG and the Pacific.
The current situation accepts that there are people without any rights at one end of a
tenure continuum to those with solid contracts held in the land registry at the other.
This mix of land “ownership” or security, and housing arrangements is central to
people’s decisions around investment in basic urban services and better houses.
19
Proponents of land titling argue that illegality discourages capital investment and that
legal tenure is a prerequisite for investment. Others suggest that it is the fear of
eviction that discourages investment. Either way, feelings or perceptions of tenure
security, regardless of whether it is formal title or not, is key to breaking the poverty
cycle and is intrinsically linked to investment in basic urban services.
Lessons learned from the Yala and Chand study include:
Accept informal urban settlement as a permanent feature
Urban settlers are a permanent feature of the Pacific landscape, a fact that needs to
be accepted by the wider population. While settlers are sometimes seen as a
problem, they provide much of the labour needed in the cities in which they live and
supply most of the garden produce consumed by urban residents.
Acknowledge that settlers are not deterred by a lack of secure tenure
Urban areas will grow despite a lack of secure land tenure. Informal arrangements
have evolved to provide the minimal level of tenure security required for settler
housing to occur.
Account for the consequences of inadequate urban land with secure tenure
The lack of access to urban land with secure tenure has resulted in negative
spillovers that have an impact on wider society, such as poverty, overcrowding,
increased conflict and loss of public revenue. The consequences of a lack of land
with security of tenure for urban housing include:
• the high cost of housing in the formal settlements
• the poor access to basic services in informal settlements
• the higher levels of poverty and overcrowding in informal settlements
• the higher levels of dispute and conflict over land and resources
• the loss of public revenue from unregulated access to utilities such as water
and electricity in the informal settlements.
20
4 Enablers for Improving Access to WASH Services
For WASH improvements in settlements and urban villages in Papua New Guinea to
be effective a number of critical constraints must be simultaneously addressed.
These are discussed above and form a number of vicious circles that fuel an
impediment to progress. Figure 5 below shows a range of key enablers that fall into
the following four categories: leadership, community, technology, and sector capacity
(see figure 5 below).
Figure 5 - Critical Enablers for WASH Improvements
21
4.1 Leadership
4.1.1 Coordination Arrangements
There are many organisations that play a role in the “WASH in Settlements” sector. Government agencies have made some attempts to organise to face the challenge,
but more needs to be done. With the development of the WASH Policy there are now
opportunities to review leadership and coordination mechanisms.
The NCDC is the key planner in identifying and developing areas for formalisation
and provision of services. The WASH PMU should monitor water, sanitation, and
hygiene status and improvements nationally and advocate for funding both nationally
and internationally. In addition, Eda Ranu (and Water PNG for settlements for the
rest of the country) are responsible for the provision of water services and authorised
to receive payment for such services, both in the form of tariffs and payments by
government for fulfilling community service obligations.
With the development of the WASH Taskforce into the WASH Steering Committee, a
sub-committee that deals only with peri-urban WASH has been established. This
includes all key organisations that deal with settlements including DNPM, the Office
of Urbanisation, the NCDC, the Department of Lands, Eda Ranu, WaterPNG and
others including key NGOs.
The sub-committee brings together key players and ensures that there is sharing of
information and plans, and that WASH improvements can be targeted to where they
will have the most impact.
One of the first functions of the Peri-Urban Sub-Committee will be to bring all parties
up to date with the existing development plans of the Department of Lands and the
NCDC. One of the key challenges to improving WASH services is the type of land
tenure that settlements have. If the NCDC can share their plans for developing POM
and can show which settlements are likely to be formalised, then a prioritisation
process could be implemented that allows Eda Ranu to plan for improvements in
settlements that will be formalised, lessening the issue of whether they have formal
tenure over the land they live on.
4.1.2 Policy Framework
With the development and acceptance of the National WASH Policy the policy
environment is improving. Whilst there is still some confusion over who is
responsible for the design and implementation of WASH projects, there is at least
national recognition and enthusiasm for improving WASH coverage.
For Port Moresby one of the key pieces of legislation that affects settlements is the
Community Services Obligation (CSO) as discussed in section 3.1 above.
A “Community Service Obligation” can only arise when the Government, through the
National Executive Council (NEC), directs a SOE to provide goods and/or services
for which the user fees are insufficient to cover the full costs of the provision of the
22
goods and/or services and provide a commercial return consistent with the principal
objective of the SOE.
Current interpretations are not aligned with the above. Billing information from Eda
Ranu shows that they are currently owed more than K3.3m through outstanding
settlement accounts. This is the amount owed by accounts that have been set up to
provide water to Port Moresby settlements, and that could easily be conceived and
proposed as CSO activities.
If Government were to ask Eda Ranu to properly cost their CSO activities, and to
invite private organisations to compete for the right to offer these services this would
encourage a shift in attitudes towards the value of water and would create a
competitive environment that would encourage both value for money, and the
improvement of services.
4.1.3 Pro-Poor Approach
A pro-poor approach needs to be adopted that recognises the difficulties people face
and finds ways to support them to engage with the water and sanitation sector in a
constructive way.
Eda Ranu will be key to this and are already discussing ways to make it easier for
people to have affordable and convenient bills. The current tariff structure of Eda
Ranu includes a rate of K1.5 per kilolitre for people using community standpipes.
However, for most “community” accounts they have negotiated and agreed an MOU that includes a standard rate of K1 per kilolitre. In addition to this consideration
should be given to establishing a flat rate tariff for users of community standpipes,
this will make bills more predictable and allow people to better plan for payment.
Where standpipes are used then the level of service should be reviewed, and WASH
Policy service levels implemented. People will be far more likely to pay their bill if
they have a better level of service. The WASH Policy states that a standpipe should
only serve 50 people, five to seven houses.
Currently to pay a water bill to Eda Ranu a customer has to travel to the main office
in the city. This is quite a distance for most settlement residents and takes time and
costs money. Eda Ranu are considering ways to alleviate this constraint by
establishing a satellite payment office/kiosk closer to settlement residents and/or
developing a mobile collection service. Some consideration could also be given to
allowing weekly bills which will be smaller than the current monthly bill.
A proactive approach to land tenure is needed that allows Eda Ranu to provide
household connections to houses that do not yet have legal ownership of their land.
Gaining formal ownership is still a time consuming and unpredictable process and so
other forms of “verification” should be considered. This could include things like the
Electoral Roll or the development of a certified list of residents that is validated by a
settlement committee and signed off by a government department, most likely
NCDC.
23
Currently Eda Ranu do occasionally provide household connections to houses with
no legal tenure. This is generally on a case by case basis and involves validating
that the applicant has suitable (formal) employment and a bank account. If these
conditions are met and the applicant is prepared to pay the connection fee
(approximately K800), then they can be connected. Establishing a system where
applicants can pay for their connection by instalments paid as part of regular bills
may help to encourage household connections.
Research in Port Moresby (Tete WASH Household Survey 2018) suggests paying
water bills to water utilities is the preferred payment method as the money is seen as
going straight to the service provider as a direct payment for the service. Ensuring
that settlement households can be billed directly, rather than having to pay a water
committee representative within the settlement, will increase payment levels and
help to develop a positive customer/provider relationship.
4.1.4 Gender
A greater balance of the involvement of women and girls in all things WASH is
critical. This includes real and representative involvement in WASH Committees,
consultation around design of water and sanitation facilities, management of
systems, health and hygiene activities, and representation at all levels of government
and other organisations/institutions.
There is some evidence that shows that targeting women as individual customers
could better increase the number of connections to water and sewage services than
a non-targeted approach.
Women living in settlements generally spend more time collecting water than men,
are more impacted by water related family illnesses than men and are more likely to
take advantage of improved service levels where available. Menstrual hygiene is
challenging in most settlements and improved water availability and girl friendly
toilets will help to reduce infections and allow women and girls privacy and dignity
when managing their monthly cycles.
Many of the women living in settlements are farmers and street vendors. This means
that they would benefit greatly from reduced time spent collecting water, and
increased time spent on income related activities.
The WASH Policy and related influx of funding is an opportunity to noticeably
increase the involvement of women. Water Committees, particularly when accessing
donor/government funding, can be structured to ensure the equal involvement of
women.
4.2 Community
4.2.1 Participation and Role
Working with existing organisations in settlement communities is critical, but an
appreciation and understanding of such groups is important before fully validating
24
their role. Broad discussions need to be held with residents to ensure a good
understanding of the makeup of the community, particularly an understanding of
governance structures within the different groups of the settlement.
Developing effective relationships with a settlement community can be a slow
process, and one that cannot be hurried. It is important to not validate an individual
or group, before you fully understand the role they play, and who they represent.
Many settlements in Port Moresby are unsafe to outsiders. A strong relationship with
accepted leaders is essential and will help to allow contact with residents and field
visits to assess conditions and opinions.
Once a representative group of people have been identified then regular face to face
meetings between the residents/committee and the facilitator is important.
Settlement residents are used to being left out and seldom consulted, regular
meetings help people to develop trust and to keep them properly informed.
4.2.2 Evidence and Data
To design an effective WASH project a detailed consultation process is essential,
this may include a detailed WASH Household Survey, if time and funding allows. A
Survey not only allows for the collection of key data, it also reinforces the
consultation and participation process and helps to build strong relationships.
Gathering of data at this early stage ensures that any designed activities have a
strong chance of being successful and helps the community themselves to
understand things that they had not considered. It also builds a baseline of
information that can then be used to monitor the progress and impact of the project
and ensure that critical lessons are learned and shared.
4.2.3 Service level Choices
Whilst it is easy to imagine that a community standpipe level system is the right
solution for Port Moresby settlements, the performance of such schemes, both in
PNG and around the Pacific is generally disappointing.
In areas where water is scarce, and people are used to travelling long distances to
collect it, community connections may well be viewed favourably by residents/users,
however they also have the potential to increase conflict amongst users.
It is important that an acceptable level of service is provided if people are expected
to consistently pay for water, this means both the distance to a water point, and the
number of hours it operates each day.
Evidence suggests that not only are settlement residents prepared to pay for water,
but that many are already paying more for water that they obtain from water vendors,
than if they were paying the published tariff to Eda Ranu.
Household connections as a starting point should be the default service level, with
funding considerations and affordability challenges meaning that lower levels should
be considered.
25
4.2.4 Health and Hygiene
For a WASH project in a Port Moresby settlement to be successful there are several
things to consider. Success can only be claimed if the impact of the project includes:
• Consistent supply of good quality water to residents
o Minimum of 50 l/p/d
o No disconnections by Utility (except for non-payment or vandalism)
o Water is clean and potable
• Supply to be close and reliable
o Within accepted distance – say 150m
o Runs for 24 hrs a day
• Consistent payment for water by residents
o High payment rates are maintained
• Improvements in WASH related health indicators
o Decrease in diarrhoea
o Decrease in open defecation
o Increase in number of effective toilets
For a project to address all of the above consideration should be given as to how
and when to combine the various components, including when to make it compulsory
in order to access other improvements.
Implementing only water supply improvements for a settlement may not have the
impact expected and could increase the incidence of disease if people start to use
water in poorly constructed latrines that do not have effective confinement tanks or
soakaways.
One approach may be to insist that for a household to access an improved level of
water supply, they must have an effective toilet that includes provision for
handwashing. At the very least a WASH project that improves the provision of water,
should also improve people’s understanding of disease transmission pathways and
the behaviours they can adopt to minimise disease transmission.
4.3 Technology
4.3.1 Water
From a technology perspective water supply infrastructure for settlements needs to
be affordable, robust, and appropriate. Locally produced equipment is likely to be
appropriate to the setting, and provided it is of good quality, should be used
wherever possible.
Whilst standpipes are the most common form of water point in settlements, they
have not received sufficient attention and are still rudimentary. Community input is
needed to improve standpipe designs and to ensure that they are appropriate,
effective, and long lasting. This should include designing and testing new standpipe
installations that are easy to use in terms of collecting water in various containers,
are easy to maintain, in terms of minimising breakages and constructing appropriate
26
drainage, and are designed to provide adequate water for the expected number of
users (max 50 users per tap).
Community standpipes and household connections can be fitted with a meter to
measure the amount of water being used. Consideration should be given to trialling
pre-paid meters that only provide water when it has been paid for. It may be difficult
initially to trial pre-paid meters on community standpipes, given the governance
complexities and the potential for conflict between community members but these
can be trialled on a household basis, any given household may choose to also sell
water to their neighbours.
If effective management processes can be developed that encourage and reward
responsible management of settlement water supplies, and a community
management model proven that accounts for total water consumption, then illegal
connections will be less of an issue. . HDPE pipe and compression couplings are
particularly easy to use and allow great flexibility for re-use or re-direction,
galvanised iron pipes are more difficult to tamper with, but are expensive and more
difficult to install.
Given the possibility of settlement water supplies being unreliable, and likely to be
intermittent in supply, bulk storage should be used whenever possible. Bulk storage
should be considered at both the system level and the standpipe/household level
with a mix of ownership that includes system (Eda Ranu) and household owned.
Constructing systems that have storage built into them supports resilience and helps
to reduce peak demand and allow for smaller diameter (and cheaper) pipelines.
4.3.2 Sanitation
The sanitation status of settlement residents is generally very poor. Whilst most
residents have some form of pit toilet, they are generally basic in design and
construction, are often full, and do not form an effective barrier to the transmission of
disease.
Currently health and hygiene behaviour and knowledge are poor particularly the
management of infant faeces. Handwashing is seldom practiced with a lack of water
often given as a reason for this.
A broad “Sanitation in Settlements” program that targets all settlements is needed.
Such a program would include the development and adaptation of an urban CLTS
approach (UCLTS) that better responds to settlement conditions. Such an approach
would combine existing resources from NGOs, government departments (NCDC, D.
of Lands, D. of Housing) and donor funded activities. The program should be
implemented through the WASH PMU of the DNPM and include the development of
an UCLTS that focuses on ending open defecation and improving existing toilets,
and develops a suite of appropriate low-cost sanitation options.
Current construction capacity appears poor and local supply of materials is
unreliable and expensive. A national Sanitation in Settlements program could take
27
advantage of scale and work with local suppliers to provide cheap and packaged
materials for toilet construction. Again, given the scale of such a project the
development of the sanitation supply chain should be considered and supported
through either government, private, or community organisations, such an approach
would benefit all settlements but would also provide a wealth of lessons for rural
settings, including the development of local hardware solutions.
Given the WASH policy includes ambitious targets for sanitation coverage (70%
coverage nationally) an effective approach to improving sanitation in settlements is
needed. There are currently upto 1 million people living in settlements in PNG, from
recent studies in Tete , Vanimo and Kerema, it is apparent that current coverage
figures are very low.
4.4 Land Tenure
Addressing the land tenure challenge in a pro-active and pragmatic way. This is a
big issue and an ongoing challenge for PNG, that impacts many sectors not just
WASH. Whilst the challenge of secure tenure may be bigger than WASH sector
considerations, new and practical solutions are needed to incentivise both Eda Ranu
and communities themselves to invest in improving services.
A range of temporary or transitional land tenure arrangements are needed that give
the tenant some level of security and allow Eda Ranu to provide services. This would
help to improve both water and sanitation services.
This could include temporary occupation licenses as have been implemented in the
Solomon Islands and/or establishing some settlements as “informal settlement zones”. Meaning they are recognised as being informal settlements locations that will eventually transition to formalisation.
4.5 Sector Capacity
4.5.1 Capacity Assessment
The WASH sector has gained momentum over the last three years with support from
the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, the EU and UNICEF. There is now a
growing recognition of the need for institutional strengthening and to building
capacity of the sector. This has resulted in the influx of substantial technical support,
particularly in developing and producing the Policy and the Strategy.
A recent UNICEF funded and supported capacity assessment has been conducted.
The assessment focussed on local capacity to implement the WASH Policy. Whilst it
looked mostly at the capacity of LLGs to develop and implement annual WASH
Programs, it is useful for considering capacity in the peri-urban sector also.
In order to achieve the targets in the Policy things will have to move fast and
progress needs to begin very soon. It is important that future capacity is considered,
even if this means a slowing in achievement of current targets in the short term
whilst people are trained in WASH principles and skills.
28
4.5.2 Technical Assistance
A national WASH Capacity Building Strategy will allow Government to decide where
technical assistance is needed, and the role of that assistance.
There will be a need to learn from global experience and to gain exposure to WASH
innovations. There will also be a need to work at the speed that local capacity
dictates. Rapid initial achievement of targets may be politically attractive however a
concerted effort is needed to build local capacity for sustained improvements.
By developing a national capacity building strategy attention can be given to the role
of technical assistance, and to maximising knowledge transfer. Wherever possible
technical assistance consultants should have at least one counterpart and should be
partnered with them for all inputs. Attendance at meetings should always include
national staff, and individual capacity building plans should be developed for national
officers. This should include working alongside key technical assistance consultants,
mentoring, and training.
4.5.3 Eda Ranu / WaterPNG
The Government have recently announced that Eda Ranu and WaterPNG are to be
merged. Currently Eda Ranu are responsible for water and sewerage for Port
Moresby and WaterPNG for water and sewerage for all other urban/town areas.
The merger will require a review of the operating structure of both entities and the
consolidation of roles, particularly at the higher levels of management. There is an
opportunity to strengthen the focus on “peri-urban” WASH throughout the country. A
strong institutional focus on the peri-urban challenge, given that it is currently 1
million people, will allow the rapid development of approaches that will encourage
WASH in settlements and encourage settlement residents to pay for the service they
receive.
A pro-poor approach to settlements that includes entering into direct relationships
with settlement residents, reviewing appropriate tariffs and billing systems, and
welcoming settlement residents as valuable customers will greatly enhance the
financial viability of the new entity and contribute to a much healthier Papua New
Guinea.
29
5. Recommendations
5.1 Reviewing and Reducing Targets
According to the definitions in the National WASH Policy both settlements and urban
villages are included in the “urban” category when discussing targets.
Current targets contained in key planning documents are highly ambitious. Table 1
below shows that not only are they ambitious but there is some variation depending
on which documents are considered. The Medium-Term Development Plan (MTDP)
states the targets differently in the different volumes.
Table 1 - Current WASH Targets
The MTDP includes targets up to 2022. As shown in table 1 MTDP volume 2 has
targets of 100% for urban access to drinking water and 80% urban access to
improved sanitation and 75% rural access to drinking water and sanitation. MTDP
volume 1 has the same urban targets but lower rural targets, these being 50% rural
access to drinking water and 20% to improved sanitation.
The National WASH Policy has targets of 95% for urban access to drinking water
and 85% urban access to improved sanitation, and 70% for rural access to both
drinking water and improved sanitation. The WASH Policy targets are for the year
2030, whilst the MTDP targets are for 2022.
So, if settlements and urban village targets are assumed to be as per urban targets,
this means 95% access to water and 85% access to improved sanitation by 2030
(WASH Policy). This will require careful planning and ensuring that settlements and
urban villages are incorporated into the POM Water and Sanitation Masterplan that
is currently being developed.
A review of these targets is recommended in light of the work that has been carried
out in the last 24 months. Targets need to reflect the reality on the ground as well as
be aspirational but must be nearly achievable for them to drive behaviour and
performance within the sector.
To ensure clarity and allow for clear planning it would be beneficial to separate
settlements and urban villages into their own “peri-urban” category.
Document Baseline
2016 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2030
MTDP 3 Volume 2 - page 65
Proportion (%) of urban population using an improved drinking water source 88 90 92 95 98 100
Proportion (%) of urban population using an improved sanitation facilities 56 60 65 70 75 80
Proportion (%) of rural population using an improved drinking water source facilities 33 40 45 50 65 75
Proportion (%) of rural population using an improved sanitation facilities 13 20 35 50 60 75
MTDP 3 Volume 1 - page 50 2016 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2030
Proportion (%) of urban population using an improved drinking water source 88 100
Proportion (%) of urban population using an improved sanitation facilities 56 80
Proportion (%) of rural population using an improved drinking water source facilities 33 50
Proportion (%) of rural population using an improved sanitation facilities 13 20
WASH Policy - page 8
Proportion (%) of urban population using an improved drinking water source 88 95
Proportion (%) of urban population using an improved sanitation facilities 56 85
Proportion (%) of rural population using an improved drinking water source facilities 33 70
Proportion (%) of rural population using an improved sanitation facilities 13 70
Targets
30
5.2 National Commitment and Coordination
For an effective program of WASH improvements in settlements and urban villages
to be successful an integrated management approach is critical. PNG now has a
WASH Policy that lays out targets for the next 10 years.
The WASH PMU, which will become the National Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
Authority (NWSHA) faces a challenge in both the rural and the peri-urban sector. It is
unclear yet what level of staffing will be dedicated to addressing the settlements and
urban villages challenge.
It is critical that the peri-urban sector is considered a high priority and that senior
staff are appointed to handle it at the WASH PMU (NWSHA), Eda Ranu and
WaterPNG, rather than junior staff who sit underneath senior staff whose primary
focus is the rural or urban sector. Technical assistance is needed to support the
WASH PMU/NWSHA address the peri-urban challenge and to build capacity for
future programs.
5.3 Sustainability and Eda Ranu
Whilst there are a range of options for WASH projects and a host of different
settlements to implement them in, sustainability for both Eda Ranu and WaterPNG
must be one of the driving criteria in choosing any approach.
Most people living in settlements use water that has originally been provided by Eda
Ranu but are not paying for it or are not paying Eda Ranu for it. For sustainable
water services to be provided to settlements there needs to be a change in the
relationship between Eda Ranu and settlement communities.
In the past there have been many failed community managed water systems
installed in settlements. These have generally failed for two interrelated reasons, the
level of service has been too low, and payment levels have been poor.
Residents of settlements don’t pay for water because they do not trust the payment system that they are forced to use, and the level of service they receive is so low.
Mostly they are expected to pay a community water committee who should pass that
money onto Eda Ranu, this has seldom worked successfully.
Another challenge is that if one resident does pay for water, but others don’t, then eventually the system is disconnected, why pay for water if you are going to be
disconnected the same as those that don’t pay. This is one of the main arguments
for household level supply.
Most people believe that Eda Ranu are a trustworthy organisation with reliable
systems, including a reliable finance system. If a direct relationship can be formed
between residents and Eda Ranu, and payment methods made easy, then residents
will be far more likely to pay for water.
This concept is currently being trialled through the Water Supply Scheme for Tete
Settlement Project and should be carefully monitored, and lessons learned that will
31
support the development of management mechanisms that allow customers to pay
directly to Eda Ranu and not through community water committees.
The incentives are there for Eda Ranu. If they can establish a system where
settlement residents pay them directly, and receive a reasonable level of service, this
will have a significant impact on the financial viability of the organisation. There are
currently 114 settlements around Port Moresby, if they were all paying for the water
they use, at accepted Eda Ranu tariffs, this would increase revenue dramatically.
5.4 Community Involvement
In locations where household level services and billing are not possible, then a
strong and representative community organisation is a key requirement for the
success of WASH improvements in settlements and urban villages.
From the research that has been conducted, including the Tete Settlement
Household WASH Survey, it is apparent that the capacity and performance of
WASH/Water Committees has in the past been poor. This has contributed to low
levels of trust between residents and Committee members, and to low levels of
payment. Whilst it is important to explore other ways of managing money, including
direct payment to Eda Ranu from the resident, there is still a significant role for the
Water Committee.
Community involvement in all aspects of design and construction will ensure that
facilities are constructed in the right place, and in a way that reflects how they will be
used by the community. This should include the choice of service levels, the choice
of water point design, the location of water points, and the location of pipelines and
meters.
Management of water points should be the responsibility of the community through
the Water Committee. This should include ensuring that it is kept tidy, that drainage
is effective, that misuse and damage is minimised, and that any issues are quickly
reported to the Eda Ranu.
The Water Committee should also, whilst not being responsible for the collection or
management of monies, help to monitor payment levels and to promote payment.
This could be through the use of a Water Point Notice Board where key maintenance
and payment information can be shared. The role of the Water Committee is to
mobilise the power of peer pressure, through communication, to ensure that people
appreciate what happens if payment levels are low, and to support the Utility in
communicating the importance of paying for services.
Given that settlements are characterised by households who have no legal tenure
over the land where they reside, the WASH Committee can act as a “post office” to
support the distribution of bills, and to support the certification of residents, along
with the use of other data sources including the Electoral Roll or Residents
Association records.
32
5.5 Options Assessment for Increasing WASH in Settlements
Effective WASH interventions require an integrated approach, one that ensures a
reliable and affordable source of water, before supporting the improvement of
sanitation facilities and hygiene behaviour.
Given the size of the population living in urban villages and settlements in Port
Moresby, providing them all with household level services will be challenging, and
some compromise model will be needed in the short term, ideally the compromise
model will be designed and installed in such a way as to be upgradeable and lead to
future household level services.
Figure 6 below shows recommended options, these include both those in green and
yellow, options in red are only considered appropriate in specific circumstances. This
is likely to be when people have very poor access to clean water and are already
paying high rates for water collected from informal water vendors.
Household connections means that each house has their own supply and pay their
own bill. This level of service greatly reduces the challenges faced when having to
rely on other members of the community and having to share bills and organise
reliable payment procedures. In addition, if pre-paid meters are used then many of
the challenges involved with sending monthly bills and handling disconnections when
people don’t pay will not be faced. People will be paying for water before using it,
and the meter will only operate when they have credit, there will be no need to
physically go and disconnect them.
Household level connections is the only level where people do not have to collect,
transport and store quantities of water, making them prone to contamination. Also,
this level of service means that people have sufficient quantities of water available
for all household members for all purposes, drinking, use in cooking, washing the
hands and body, menstrual hygiene, managing infants faeces, washing clothing, and
washing and cleaning the immediate household environment. This level of service
will have the biggest impact on the health of the individual, the family, the settlement
or village community, and the whole town or city.
Figure 6 - Recommended Water Options
33
The meter farms approach is currently being trialled in Lae. This approach allows
for household meters for settlement households, but the meters are located in one
location at the edge of the settlement (meter farm – see photo 1 below) and not next
to each house.
Photo 1 - Lae Meter Farm
This approach appears to be popular with settlement residents and involves them
being responsible for their own pipeline from the meter farm to the house, WaterPNG
are only responsible for providing infrastructure to the meter farm.
Further evaluation is needed to understand how this model is working and if
households with a connection are sharing water with other households, and if so,
how much are they charging them? Given the large number of pipes that have to
come from the meter farm, there is potential for damage to pipelines, and how this is
managed internally is not yet known. It would be interesting to see if several
households are sharing one pipeline (one meter at the meter farm) but are providing
connections to more than one house. If this is happening, then how are bills
calculated and funds collected. This approach may not be appropriate if every
household in a settlement wants a connection, the resulting number of pipelines
would be large and connection costs high since each house would have its own
pipeline.
The neighbourhood standpipes system is what is currently being trialled in the
settlement of Tete near Gerehu. This trial is implementing the WASH Policy service
34
level of water within 150m and each tap serving up to 50 people. Technically this is
easy to achieve, and the trial is focussing on developing innovative approaches to
billing/collection/tariffs that are more suitable for settlement customers. This will
involve Eda Ranu charging a flat rate tariff to each house and developing direct
billing and payment mechanisms.
Community managed systems appear more likely to be successful in urban villages
rather than settlements. There is currently a system in the urban village of
Poreabada that has 12 standpipes and serves an estimated 10,000 people. This
system has some capacity issues in terms of water availability, but the community do
seem to have developed their own management mechanism where people pay for
water when they collect it from each standpipe. Whilst there are still some challenges
with this system, they appear to be paying their bills and have a small fund available
for repairs.
Direct line systems (a single pipeline into a settlement) and water kiosks are unlikely
to be appropriate except in rare circumstances. The direct line system is common at
the moment and includes very low service levels, sometimes as many as 4,000
people using a single tap. Such a system does not provide sufficient water for
families to cover their daily needs, and means they use a variety of (unsafe)
supplementary sources. Also, it is unlikely that residents will pay for such a low
service level.
Water kiosks may be useful in very particular circumstances and if properly regulated
may provide water that is more affordable than what is currently being purchased at
car washes and markets. Given the WASH Policy service level standards (50l/p/d
within 150m) water kiosks would have to be widespread within a community. This
would bring with it challenges of carrying and storing water and ensuring that it does
not become contaminated before use.
In terms of improving sanitation facilities in settlements and urban villages there are
a range of technical challenges specific to each location. For most residents these
options need to be affordable as well as effective, and where possible should be
upgradeable. The development of a local peri-urban sanitation ladder based on
the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) ladder, but adapted for peri-urban conditions in
PNG, would support settlement wide improvements and allow households to quickly
understand their options and costs. The contextualised ladder should include a clear
description of each option and should encourage households to continue to improve
their sanitation facilities as funds and technologies become available.
Some support for the sanitation sector/supply chain will be needed to ensure that
appropriate technologies and materials are available and affordable. Identifying
existing suppliers of sanitation hardware and supporting them to increase their
knowledge of sanitation options as well as their stock will help them respond to
growing demand.
35
Since Eda Ranu are responsible for installing and managing sewerage and not
responsible for onsite sanitation, they cannot immediately have a big impact on
sanitary conditions in many settlements and villages beyond improving water
availability. One model that should be trialled and is within the mandate of Eda Ranu
is the communal septic system. This model should be trialled, and a location/s
chosen that allow effluent to be directed into existing sewer lines and that are
accessible by septage trucks.
Given that the majority of village and settlement residents are using unimproved pit
latrines the most immediate and cost-effective approach will be to improve these
facilities to make them an effective barrier to the transmission of disease.
There are a number of simple improvements that can be promoted these include:
• ensuring that the floor of the toilet is raised above the surrounding ground to
avoid flooding
• to install an improved slab that covers the pit and does not allow flies to enter
around the edges or through the floor and that can be kept clean
• and to cover the hole in the pit, if the toilet is not a ventilated improved toilet.
• retrofitting of a vent pipe to existing toilets would improve the condition of the
toilet both by helping to dry the pit contents and to reduce odours in the toilet
structure.
In order to build demand for toilets and to support people to improve their health and
hygiene knowledge and behaviour an intensive engagement approach is needed.
Whilst Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) has had some success in Africa and
Asia, it is currently less proven in the Pacific. CLTS was designed for use in rural
communities and does present some challenges for use in peri-urban settings.
Firstly, the structure of “community” is different in an informal settlement compared to a rural community. There is generally not the same level of homogeneity and often
less effective or accepted leadership. People may not know each other as well as
when they live in rural communities and often will work away from home each day
going into town for employment. Community projects are often lacking, and shared
responsibilities less common.
Secondly, CLTS focuses on “triggering” communities to build toilets, however in
many peri-urban settings people already have a toilet, the focus for a peri-urban
project will be on improving toilets rather than ending open defecation.
To improve the uptake of effective toilets and to improve hygiene awareness and
behaviour a modified approach is needed that could build on CLTS. Some piloting
will be needed to refine such an approach and should target the individual household
and clusters of households (rather than whole communities) and combine hygiene
promotion with sanitation improvements. This approach should aim to trigger families
to improve their sanitation practices both by reducing/eliminating open defecation
and by promoting improvements up the sanitation ladder.
